Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Traditio wrote:
Is there any place in the rules where you are given permission to move a model vertically except with respect to terrain pieces?

You are given permission to move models, that permission does not include any difference between horizontal and vertical movement. You measure the model's movement in 3d space, from starting point to ending point.

Posts like the above annoy me. People complain about how bad GW is at writing rules. To an extent, that might be true. But I imagine that a big part of it is people trying to twist the words to say something contrary to what they were obviously intended to say.

Nope. Other companies get it right and the rules can't be exploited no matter how hard you try (and if you succeed it's quickly FAQed), GW just sucks at writing rules.

If I have a rhino, it's wrecked, and it's surrounded by a circle of models, no, I can't put my unit on top of the rhino to avoid the unit being destroyed.

{citation needed}

Remember, a destroyed vehicle model is a piece of terrain which includes rules for moving onto or through it.

 Traditio wrote:


There is no explicit permission in the rules that says that an infantry model can "jump" or move vertically onto a friendly model's base.

Who needs to jump? GW's bases are less than knee height for most models. Common sense would tell me that a model can step that high. Or it would tell me that the base is primarily there to help the model stand up, and so having them overlapping simply isn't a big deal.

You can find a common sense argument for allowing or disallowing just about anything.

 Traditio wrote:
Again: where is the explicit permission to move vertically? As far as I know, there's no explicit permission in the rules that says that Lt. Dan can move vertically onto Pvt. Gump.

You don't need explicit permission. The rules say that if I have a model that moves 6" I can move it anywhere within 6" of movement distance, except for specific places I can't move it (impassible terrain, within 1" of enemy models except when charging, etc). To prohibit movement onto friendly models you would need to cite a similar "except for this place" restriction on where the model can be placed.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Traditio wrote:
Again: where is the explicit permission to move vertically? As far as I know, there's no explicit permission in the rules that says that Lt. Dan can move vertically onto Pvt. Gump.

You don't need explicit permission. The rules say that if I have a model that moves 6" I can move it anywhere within 6" of movement distance, except for specific places I can't move it (impassible terrain, within 1" of enemy models except when charging, etc). To prohibit movement onto friendly models you would need to cite a similar "except for this place" restriction on where the model can be placed.

In some editions, models are impassable terrain.

 Pouncey wrote:
In some editions, models are impassable terrain.

Which is why I'm asking for a specific 7th edition rule to be cited. I acknowledge that the rules may prohibit it, but it's not a case of "prove that you're allowed to do it". The burden of proof is on the person opposing model stacking to cite a rule that does not allow it, and I haven't seen anyone do so yet.

Peregrine wrote:]You don't need explicit permission. The rules say that if I have a model that moves 6" I can move it anywhere within 6" of movement distance, except for specific places I can't move it (impassible terrain, within 1" of enemy models except when charging, etc). To prohibit movement onto friendly models you would need to cite a similar "except for this place" restriction on where the model can be placed.

By your reasoning:

I could start with a tactical marine on the table. I then could draw up a 3 dimensional map of the table. I then could move that tac marine 6 inches straight up, appeal to wobbly model syndrome, mark it down on the map that the tac marine is literally flying, and then remove the model from the table.

 Traditio wrote:

Peregrine wrote:]You don't need explicit permission. The rules say that if I have a model that moves 6" I can move it anywhere within 6" of movement distance, except for specific places I can't move it (impassible terrain, within 1" of enemy models except when charging, etc). To prohibit movement onto friendly models you would need to cite a similar "except for this place" restriction on where the model can be placed.

By your reasoning:

I could start with a tactical marine on the table. I then could draw up a 3 dimensional map of the table. I then could move that tac marine 6 inches straight up, appeal to wobbly model syndrome, mark it down on the map that the tac marine is literally flying, and then remove the model from the table.

Yup.

Then when someone wants to shoot it, you have to hold that tac marine where it actually is so your opponent can measure LoS and range properly.

 Traditio wrote:
By your reasoning:

I could start with a tactical marine on the table. I then could draw up a 3 dimensional map of the table. I then could move that tac marine 6 inches straight up, appeal to wobbly model syndrome, mark it down on the map that the tac marine is literally flying, and then remove the model from the table.

No you can't. WMS applies only to situations where it is possible to place a model but it would be at an excessive risk of being bumped off its spot. A model can not be placed at an arbitrary spot 6" above the table, so WMS does not apply.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Traditio wrote:
By your reasoning:

I could start with a tactical marine on the table. I then could draw up a 3 dimensional map of the table. I then could move that tac marine 6 inches straight up, appeal to wobbly model syndrome, mark it down on the map that the tac marine is literally flying, and then remove the model from the table.

No you can't. WMS applies only to situations where it is possible to place a model but it would be at an excessive risk of being bumped off its spot. A model can not be placed at an arbitrary spot 6" above the table, so WMS does not apply.

They're Space Marines.

They'll fly when the plot demands them to.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Traditio wrote:
By your reasoning:

I could start with a tactical marine on the table. I then could draw up a 3 dimensional map of the table. I then could move that tac marine 6 inches straight up, appeal to wobbly model syndrome, mark it down on the map that the tac marine is literally flying, and then remove the model from the table.

No you can't. WMS applies only to situations where it is possible to place a model but it would be at an excessive risk of being bumped off its spot. A model can not be placed at an arbitrary spot 6" above the table, so WMS does not apply.

Of course it's possible to place a model there. Of course, given the fact that my arm will eventually get tired, there will be an excessive risk of me dropping it, thereby bumping it off of the spot. Therefore: WMS.

"Let me know on your turn if you want to shoot it. I'll hold it up in the air! Just don't wait too long to shoot it! If the game lasts long enough, I might need a stepping stool!"


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Peregrine wrote:

 Pouncey wrote:
In some editions, models are impassable terrain.

Which is why I'm asking for a specific 7th edition rule to be cited. I acknowledge that the rules may prohibit it, but it's not a case of "prove that you're allowed to do it". The burden of proof is on the person opposing model stacking to cite a rule that does not allow it, and I haven't seen anyone do so yet.

Whatever happened to all the talk of "permissive ruleset" and all of that hullabaloo?

I'm not sure that countering a claim that the rules are flawed by pointing out that the rules are flawed will actually get the result you're looking for, Traditio...

 insaniak wrote:
I'm not sure that countering a claim that the rules are flawed by pointing out that the rules are flawed will actually get the result you're looking for, Traditio...

Are you conceding that you think that the rules literally allow my space marines to...you know...literally fly around in space?

Is that what you are saying?

 Traditio wrote:
Of course it's possible to place a model there. Of course, given the fact that my arm will eventually get tired, there will be an excessive risk of me dropping it, thereby bumping it off of the spot. Therefore: WMS.

Holding a model in position because it can't be placed there =/= placing it.

Whatever happened to all the talk of "permissive ruleset" and all of that hullabaloo?

You just don't understand how a permissive ruleset works. A permissive ruleset is one where the rules tell you what you can do, not one where the answer to any rules question is "no" unless explicitly stated otherwise. The general rules for movement give you permission to place a model anywhere within its movement distance. Then specific rules impose additional restrictions: no moving through impassible terrain, no moving within 1" of enemy models except when charging, shorter movement distances through certain terrain types, etc. If no such specific restriction exists for a particular case then the general rule of "anywhere within movement distance" applies.

 Traditio wrote:


Are you conceding that you think that the rules literally allow my space marines to...you know...literally fly around in space?

Is that what you are saying?

No, I'm saying that claiming that the rules are silly doesn't prove that the rules aren't silly.

Peregrine wrote:

 Traditio wrote:
Of course it's possible to place a model there. Of course, given the fact that my arm will eventually get tired, there will be an excessive risk of me dropping it, thereby bumping it off of the spot. Therefore: WMS.

Holding a model in position because it can't be placed there =/= placing it.

Peregrine wrote:

 Traditio wrote:
By your reasoning:

I could start with a tactical marine on the table. I then could draw up a 3 dimensional map of the table. I then could move that tac marine 6 inches straight up, appeal to wobbly model syndrome, mark it down on the map that the tac marine is literally flying, and then remove the model from the table.

No you can't. WMS applies only to situations where it is possible to place a model but it would be at an excessive risk of being bumped off its spot. A model can not be placed at an arbitrary spot 6" above the table, so WMS does not apply.

http://i.imgur.com/TX3MufR.png
This question from the FAQ would imply that it doesn't have to be possible to put the model there.
Q: There is no room for my model what do I do?
GW: It is flying, WMS
So according to that FAQ WMS doesn't involve the model actually being able to stand there without you holding it.

roflmajog wrote:
This question from the FAQ would imply that it doesn't have to be possible to put the model there.
Q: There is no room for my model what do I do?
GW: It is flying, WMS
So according to that FAQ WMS doesn't involve the model actually being able to stand there without you holding it.

You have officially made my day!

Well, there you have it, Peregrine. According to your argument, my space marines can, in fact, fly. Good game.

 Traditio wrote:

roflmajog wrote:
This question from the FAQ would imply that it doesn't have to be possible to put the model there.
Q: There is no room for my model what do I do?
GW: It is flying, WMS
So according to that FAQ WMS doesn't involve the model actually being able to stand there without you holding it.

You have officially made my day!

Well, there you have it, Peregrine. According to your argument, my space marines can, in fact, fly. Good game.

Is that so? I can't see or identify any "something" that your Space Marine is standing on. There's no game surface that your model can occupy, so it can't fly. Unless we're calling air a game surface, in which case models can't even move because they would be physically encased by air at all times.

 Traditio wrote:
Well, there you have it, Peregrine. According to your argument, my space marines can, in fact, fly. Good game.

If you take the sheer idiocy of the FAQ that way and ignore the actual rules. And, as has already been pointed out, arguing that the rules are broken in some other way doesn't really answer the question in the OP. It just means that 40k's rules are really badly written.

If you want to go for sheer, unadulterated idiocy in overly-literal interpretations of rules, look no further than interpreting the LoS rules with the knowledge that a uniform or armor is not, in fact, a "body part" and that helmet lenses are not, in fact, "eyes."

This discussion is taking a strange turn. Although I don't have it to hand, I'm pretty sure the BRB does say somewhere about using common sense, therefore negating any floating model predicaments.
In fact I'd say that being advised to use common sense would negate a heck of a lot of silly rules theories. Wish I could quote the page

 Huron black heart wrote:
This discussion is taking a strange turn. Although I don't have it to hand, I'm pretty sure the BRB does say somewhere about using common sense, therefore negating any floating model predicaments.
In fact I'd say that being advised to use common sense would negate a heck of a lot of silly rules theories. Wish I could quote the page

There's also the fact that most opponents, if you tried to claim your Marines can fly, would respond by packing up their army and finding someone else to play with.

 Pouncey wrote:

 Huron black heart wrote:
This discussion is taking a strange turn. Although I don't have it to hand, I'm pretty sure the BRB does say somewhere about using common sense, therefore negating any floating model predicaments.
In fact I'd say that being advised to use common sense would negate a heck of a lot of silly rules theories. Wish I could quote the page

There's also the fact that most opponents, if you tried to claim your Marines can fly, would respond by packing up their army and finding someone else to play with.

Which I would. Play with and not against your opponent, allow common sense to prevail and stop when it's no longer fun

 Huron black heart wrote:
Which I would. Play with and not against your opponent, allow common sense to prevail and stop when it's no longer fun

Agreed. Many of these technicalities in the rules are fun to explore as sort of a "Hahaha, look what the rules technically say I can do!" but in an actual game no one ever tries to insist on this stuff.

In regards to Marines flying, I once read a Baen sci-fi novel by John Ringo where the power armored infantry made use of their armor's inertial dampeners and hologram generators to disguise a squad as the "heads" of a large hydra creature, to fool their enemy into wasting shots on the body, which was in fact a hologram. Of course, the power armor in that series was fully capable of taking a nuclear explosion point-blank without the occupant dying.

 Pouncey wrote:
If you want to go for sheer, unadulterated idiocy in overly-literal interpretations of rules, look no further than interpreting the LoS rules with the knowledge that a uniform or armor is not, in fact, a "body part" and that helmet lenses are not, in fact, "eyes."

Wait, fully armored Marines are invisible and blind?

 Verviedi wrote:

 Pouncey wrote:
If you want to go for sheer, unadulterated idiocy in overly-literal interpretations of rules, look no further than interpreting the LoS rules with the knowledge that a uniform or armor is not, in fact, a "body part" and that helmet lenses are not, in fact, "eyes."

Wait, fully armored Marines are invisible and blind?

Technically, yes. As are Sisters of Battle models who have their helmets on. And Eldar. Tau too.

They also cannot move, as you need to be able to see the location you're moving to.

Guardsmen are now OP beyond words. Congratulations, GW, you went full slow. Never go full slow.

 Verviedi wrote:
Guardsmen are now OP beyond words. Congratulations, GW, you went full slow. Never go full slow.

Necrons and Tyranids are mostly-unaffected, because as sentient machines and biomorphs with extreme natural weapons/defenses, the Necron and Tyranid models are in fact their bodies (and they're naked!). Wraith constructs can be targeted, as their bodies are made of Wraithbone, but they can't see as they have no eyes. The Mechanicum guys are cyborgs, so bionic eyes count as part of their bodies, but they wear enough clothing to hamper the ability to target them. Dark Eldar often don't wear helmets so they're in the same state as IG.

Hm, so who has the best situation here? A model with everything covered except eyes.... Eldar Rangers? Skitarii? Maybe Kataphron Breachers/Destroyers?

 Verviedi wrote:
Hm, so who has the best situation here? A model with everything covered except eyes.... Eldar Rangers? Skitarii? Maybe Kataphron Breachers/Destroyers?

The Orbital Strike from the 3e Witch Hunters Codex, actually.

It gets to deal damage to stuff all game but you can never kill it since it deliberately has no model.

Sounds reasonable enough. I only have Daemonhunters for reference, is it the same as the lance strikes in that?